Re: [Vo]:Berlinguette, C.P., et al., Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion. Nature, 2019

Terry Blanton wrote: > The first article says: >> <> bias . >> >> > > Well at least they aren't using the scathing term pathological science. >> > > And for that I am grateful and thusly do not use the term 'cognitive > dissonance'. :) >

Re: [Vo]:Berlinguette, C.P., et al., Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion. Nature, 2019

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 1:02 PM H LV wrote: > The first article says: > < bias . >> > > Well at least they aren't using the scathing term pathological science. > And for that I am grateful and thusly do not use the term 'cognitive dissonance'.

Re: [Vo]:Berlinguette, C.P., et al., Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion. Nature, 2019

The first article says: . >> Well at least they aren't using the scathing term pathological science. Harry On Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:13 PM Jed Rothwell Note there are two other articles in Nature about the Google experiment. > Both of them

RE: [Vo]:Berlinguette, C.P., et al., Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion. Nature, 2019

986> for Windows 10 From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 7:47:17 AM To: Vortex Subject: Re: [Vo]:Berlinguette, C.P., et al., Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion. Nature, 2019 Alain Sepeda mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com>> wrote: By the way, f

Re: [Vo]:Berlinguette, C.P., et al., Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion. Nature, 2019

Alain Sepeda wrote: By the way, from what you read about the work of that team, was failure > predictable ? > I do not think they are finished, so it should not be called a failure yet. They probably did not achieve high loading. See this interview with one of the authors:

Re: [Vo]:Berlinguette, C.P., et al., Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion. Nature, 2019

I think this paper is weak tea. The editorials accompanying it are pretty awful. On the other hand, as they say in show business, any publicity is good publicity. People reading *Nature* may ask themselves: Why did they publish a paper along with three editorials attacking it? Why are they so

Re: [Vo]:Berlinguette, C.P., et al., Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion. Nature, 2019

By the way, from what you read about the work of that team, was failure predictable ? do you know if they contacted experienced actors of the domain ? Did they test fuel from other team (like the Japanese, or IH scientists?) What I have seen is usual hate speech by Nature, and great enthusiasm

Re: [Vo]:Berlinguette, C.P., et al., Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion. Nature, 2019

Note there are two other articles in Nature about the Google experiment. Both of them insufferable bullshit: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01675-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01683-9

Re: [Vo]:Berlinguette, C.P., et al., Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion. Nature, 2019

Here is something hilarious about the Nature webpage for this paper. Look at Reference 1. They just couldn't help themselves! 1. Fleischmann, M. & Pons, S. Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium. *J. Electroanal. Chem. Interfacial Electrochem*. 261, 301–308 (1989). Article that

[Vo]:Berlinguette, C.P., et al., Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion. Nature, 2019

Berlinguette, C.P., et al., Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion. Nature, 2019 DOI https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1256-6 Abstract The 1989 claim of ‘cold fusion’ was publicly heralded as the future of clean energy generation. However, subsequent failures to reproduce the effect